This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Originally Posted by mac

So...you'd do something about it?

With the second reading, yes....my tax dollars go to the school, and if it's happening on school grounds then the activity is illegal, so it's creating a situation that can negtively involve my kid. If it was off school grounds, or at another school, I wouldn't

Originally Posted by MrWonka

In fact, I would wager to you that within 10 years of today's date that stupid MAGA hat will be registered as a symbol of hate on par with a Swastika.

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

It is possible that something that doesn't affect you directly can cause harm to society (arguably in this case) and indirectly cause you harm?

Yes, however nobody has yet to solidly demonstrate that this is the case with SSM.

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Using "same" or "opposite" gender is a nonstarter as it's using a broader term to disguise the specifics that actually matter. In this case, men can marry women but women can't marry women, and vise versa.

Would a law stating one can marry the opposite religious preference be constitutional? So athiests can marry religious people and religious people can marry atheists, but an atheist can't marry another athiest and a religious person cant marry another religious person?

After all, NOBODY could marry someone of the same view regarding religion

What I was replying to was TPD saying that "NOBODY is allowed to marry two women" as a way to distinguish polygamy from SSM. I was just pointing out the same argument can apply to SSM.

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

With the second reading, yes....my tax dollars go to the school, and if it's happening on school grounds then the activity is illegal, so it's creating a situation that can negtively involve my kid. If it was off school grounds, or at another school, I wouldn't

Against the rules maybe, but illegal? Is is illegal for two teens to engage in sex?

Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

What I was replying to was TPD saying that "NOBODY is allowed to marry two women" as a way to distinguish polygamy from SSM. I was just pointing out the same argument can apply to SSM.

I said this yesterday, I see no good reason, in principle, why polygamy should be illegal.

same goes for incest marriage if they choose not to have kids. still waitin' on an answer on why I shouldn't be able to marry my imaginary hot sister.

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.